Hannan v. Torres-Springer
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:18-cv-09878
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Hannan v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Freeman allowed amendment and ordered assistance serving three newly named defendants.
Matthew Hannan, the newly named defendants Raymond Alexander, Andrew Campan, and Alexis Hernandez, the Rose Defendants, and the City of New York.
What happened
Hannan v. City of New York involved pro se plaintiff Matthew Hannan’s requests to amend his complaint, identify three previously unnamed defendants, extend the service deadline, and obtain help from federal marshals serving them.
The court allowed the late amendment and accepted the amended complaint for filing, but struck claims under the Rehabilitation Act and Section 713 that had already been dismissed with prejudice. It also granted the request for an extension and marshal assistance.
Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman directed the Clerk to prepare the service papers, extended the existing defendants’ response deadline until 21 days after service on the three new defendants, and closed the motions.
The detailed version
- Hannan v. Torres-Springer · No. 1:18-cv-09878
- Paul Gardephe
- July 10, 2020
Background
Pro se plaintiff Matthew Hannan moved for (1) more time and court assistance to serve three individuals previously identified as “Doe” defendants and (2) permission to amend his complaint. The individuals were later identified as Raymond Alexander, Andrew Campan, and Alexis Hernandez. Hannan alleged that security guards at Henry Hall were involved in his unlawful eviction.
An earlier order by Judge Paul G. Gardephe dismissed Hannan’s claims under Section 1983, the New York State Constitution, the Rehabilitation Act, Section 713, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. That order allowed Hannan to amend his Section 1983 and New York State Constitution claims and to add Alexander, Campan, and Hernandez as defendants, but otherwise denied leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. The order set a May 17, 2020 deadline. Hannan filed his amendment motion one day late, on May 18, 2020.
The proposed amended complaint added allegations and attempted to continue asserting claims under the Rehabilitation Act and Section 713, even though those claims had previously been dismissed without leave to amend. The City of New York opposed the amendment on timeliness and prejudice grounds. The Rose Defendants did not oppose the motion but stated that they could not accept service for Alexander, Campan, and Hernandez.
Rulings
Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman granted Hannan’s motion for an extension of time and for assistance from the U.S. Marshals Service in serving the newly named defendants. The court also granted Hannan’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint, except that the Third Cause of Action was deemed stricken to the extent it asserted a Rehabilitation Act claim, and the Fifth Cause of Action was deemed stricken to the extent it asserted a Section 713 claim. The court said those claims had already been dismissed with prejudice.
The court accepted the amended complaint and its exhibits for filing as of July 10, 2020. It directed the Clerk to prepare the required service forms and documents and deliver them to the U.S. Marshals Service for service on Alexander, Campan, and Hernandez. The Rose Defendants and the City were given 21 days after service on those three defendants to move, answer, or otherwise respond to the amended complaint. The court closed the motions at Docket Nos. 73, 89, and 90.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.